Information de reference pour ce titreAccession Number: | 00000620-200911670-00016.
|
Author: | Nir, Lilach a; Knafo, Ariel a
|
Institution: | (a)Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel
|
Title: | |
Source: | Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1167(1):146-157, June 2009.
|
Abstract: | : The relationship between core values and political opinions has been well documented but its implications for citizens' awareness of the reasons that ground competing opinions are less well understood. This study examines the effect of value priorities on rating different rationales for a government decision to end a war. The relationship is tested among Israelis in the days following the aftermath of the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon. Consistent with previous research, values, such as universalism, predicted dovish or hawkish positions on the ceasefire. In addition, however, different value priorities correlated, as expected, with their respective rationales for an opinion on the ceasefire. Moreover, both supporters and opponents evaluated valid (versus invalid) reasons as more important, regardless of their personal position. Overall findings suggest that, even in conflict, reasoned considerations resonate with the opinions of ordinary citizens.
Copyright 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
|
Author Keywords: | political reasoning; public opinion quality; argument repertoire; political awareness.
|
References: | 1. Mayton, D.M. & D.J. Peters, et al. 1999. Values, militarism, and nonviolent predispositions. Peace Confl.: J. Peace Psychol. 5: 69-77.
2. Feldman, S. 2003. Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. D.O. Sears & L. Huddy, et al., Eds.: 477-508. Oxford University Press. New York, NY.
3. Rokeach, M. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. Free Press. New York, NY.
4. Inglehart, R. 1977. The Silent Revolution. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.
5. Inglehart, R. 1990. Cultural Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.
6. Feldman, S. 1988. Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 32: 416-440.
7. Conover, P.J. & S. Feldman. 1981. The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identification. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 25: 617-645.
8. Converse, P.E. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and Discontent. D.E. Apter, Ed.: 206-226. The Free Press. Glencoe, IL.
9. Feldman, S. & J. Zaller. 1992. The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 36: 268-307.
10. Tetlock, P.E. 1986. A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50: 819-127.
11. Tetlock, P.E. & R.S. Peterson, et al. 1996. Revising the value pluralism model: Incorporating social content and context postulates. In The Psychology of Values. Ontario Symposium, Vol. 8. C. Seligman & J.M. Olson, et al., Eds.: 25-51. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ.
12. Schwartz, S.H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25. M. Zanna, Ed.: 1-65. Academic Press. New York, NY.
13. Schwartz, S.H. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values? J. Soc. Issues 50: 19-46.
14. Schwartz, S.H. & T. Rubel. 2005. Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multi-method studies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89: 1010-1028.
15. Barnea, M. 2003. Personal values and party orientations in different cultures. Ph.D. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.
16. Barnea, M. & S.H. Schwartz. 1998. Values and voting. Pol. Psychol. 19: 17-40.
17. Braithwaite, V. 1997. Harmony and security value orientations in political evaluation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23: 401-414.
18. Caprara, G.V. & S.H. Schwartz, et al. 2006. Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Pol. Psychol. 27: 1-28.
19. McCann, J.A. 1997. Electoral choices and core values change: The 1992 presidential campaign. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 41: 564-583.
20. Goren, P. 2004. Political sophistication and policy reasoning: A reconsideration. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 48: 462-478.
21. Goren, P. 2005. Party identification and core political values. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 49: 881-896.
22. Schwartz, S.H. & G. Melech, et al. 2001. Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 32: 519-542.
23. Knafo, A. & E. Daniel, et al. 2008. Values as protective factors against violent behavior in Jewish and Arab high schools in Israel. Child Dev. 79: 652-667.
24. Cappella, J.N. & V. Price, et al. 2002. Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic Dialogue during campaign 2000. Pol. Commun. 19: 73-93.
25. Price, V. & J.N. Cappella, et al. 2002. Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Pol. Commun. 19: 95-112.
26. Mutz, D.C. & P.S. Martin. 2001. Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95: 97-114.
27. Price, V. & L. Nir, et al. 2006. Normative and informational influences in online political discussions. Commun. Theory 16: 47-74.
28. Page, B.I. 1996. Who Deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL.
29. Shavit, Y. & E. Yaar, et al. 2006. Public attitudes on war: Daily tracking, July 19 - August 13, 2006. Public Opinion Report, No. 12, B.I. and Lucille Cohen Institute for Public Opinion Research, Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew).
|
Language: | English.
|
Document Type: | Part III. Sacred Values in Social Conflicts: Anthropological Perspectives on Fairness.
|
Journal Subset: | Clinical Medicine. Behavioral & Social Sciences. Life Sciences. Physical Science & Engineering.
|
ISSN: | 0077-8923
|
NLM Journal Code: | 5nm, 7506858
|
DOI Number: | https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.174...- ouverture dans une nouvelle fenêtre
|
Annotation(s) | |
|
|